- (1.)The petitioner was the appellant in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 41 of 2012 in the Court of the 4th Additional District Judge, Dahod. Challenge in this petition is made to the report given by the Forensic Science Laboratory (of the State of Gujarat) at Surat, regarding DNA test of the children of the present petitioner and respondent wife, pursuant to the order of the said Court dated 01.02.2013. The said order was made on the allegation of the petitioner husband that he is not the biological father of the children (three children), which was the basis to file divorce petition against the respondent wife. The DNA test has falsified the allegation of the petitioner husband and he is aggrieved by the said report.
(2.)Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that while taking / sending the samples for DNA test, the prescribed procedure was not followed and the same led to incorrect conclusion and therefore the report needs to be interfered with.
(3.)Having heard learned advocate for the petitioner and having gone through the material on record, this Court finds as under.
3.1 The petitioner husband had married the respondent on 14.06.1994.

3.2 The divorce proceedings are initiated by the husband, on 21.04.2011.

3.3 At that time, they had three children. The date of birth of the children, as stated by the petitioner are (i) 20.03.1995 son (ii) 01.06.1996 daughter and (iii) 17.10.1999 - son.

3.4 While filing divorce petitioner, the petitioner made general allegation against the wife, as transpires from the divorce petition. In the said proceedings, the husband gave an application (Exh.13) that he has reasons to believe ( in the year 2011) that the wife is in relationship with some other man since some time and therefore he believes that his children (born in the year 1995, 1996 and 1999) could not be his children. With this foundation, he requested the DNA test of the children vis a vis himself and wife.

3.5 The Trial Court at Dahod, took note of the period during which the children were born and the timing of the allegation and rejected the application vide order dated 01.03.2012.

3.6 This was challenged by the husband before the District Court, Dahod by filing Misc. Civil Appeal No.41 of 2012.

3.7 The 4th Additional District Judge, Dahod allowed the said appeal vide order dated 01.02.2013 and directed the respondent wife to submit herself along with her children to perform the DNA test. The poor respondent lady did not challenge this order. Though the said order is not the subject matter of this petition, it is observed that this could not have been done by the Appellate Court below. Be that as it may, the DNA test is conducted.

3.8 The said test has falsified the say of the husband. The relevant part of the said report dated 12.09.2013 reads as under.

"From the above observations, it is concluded that STR profiles of Mr.Pandya Hasmukhbhai Ambalal (source of Ex.1-1 : blood) & that of Ms.Pandya Sharmisthaben Hasmukhbhai (source of Ex.1-2) are consistent as biological father & biological mother of Pandya Rahulkumar Hasmukhbhai (source of Ex.1-3, blood), Pandya Vasudhaben Hasmukhbhai (source of Ex.1-4 : blood) & Pandya Dharnmikkumar Hasmukhbhai (Source of Exh.1-5, Blood)."

3.9 The above report is challenged by the petitioner husband alleging some procedural lapse leading to incorrect conclusion.

3.10 Learned advocate for the petitioner has taken this Court through the pleadings on record and has submitted that the care which was required to be taken while conducting the test is not taken and therefore the DNA report needs to be interfered with.

3.11 Considering the totality, this Court finds that the petitioner husband has not only abused the process of law, but has abused his wife, which is falsified by the clinching evidence like FSL report. Dismissing this petition without imposing cost would be too lenient view against the petitioner, which need not be taken by this Court, in the present case.